The data that got my attention
Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report delivered a figure that should make every boardroom pause. Manager engagement fell from 27 percent in 2024 to just 22 percent in 2025. That is the largest single-year decline Gallup has recorded for this group. It is not a blip. It is a structural signal that the people responsible for translating strategy into daily results are checking out.
A parallel survey by Deloitte Canada and LifeWorks found that 82 percent of senior leaders experienced exhaustion indicative of burnout this past year. Among those leaders, 96 percent reported their mental health had declined. Half, or 51 percent, had contemplated leaving their roles entirely. These numbers do not describe isolated cases. They describe a leadership class that is running on empty.
Why this matters now
Leadership burnout is not a private wellness issue. It is an operational liability. Organizations with disengaged managers see higher team turnover, lower productivity, and increased safety incidents. When the person setting the team’s tone is emotionally depleted, the effects multiply downward.
The cost is measurable on a balance sheet and visible in daily operations. Gallup estimates that low employee engagement cost the global economy roughly ten trillion dollars in lost productivity during 2025. At the individual level, replacing a C-level executive can cost up to two hundred and thirteen percent of that person’s annual salary. Forty-three percent of organizations have reportedly lost at least half their leadership teams to burnout-related turnover. When half your leadership bench walks out the door, institutional knowledge and strategic momentum walk out with it. Those are not human resources statistics. They are balance sheet items that compound over multiple quarters.
What the research actually shows
The data points converge on one uncomfortable truth. Organizations are asking more of managers without giving them proportionally more support, and the gap is widening. The manager role has expanded to include hybrid workforce coordination, rapid organizational change, and increased reporting demands. Yet the resources available to them have not kept pace.
The reasons are not mysterious. Excessive workload remains the top driver of burnout across sectors, followed closely by staff shortages and unclear role expectations. Managers increasingly report that they lack autonomy to solve problems at the team level and are held accountable for outcomes they cannot control. These are design flaws, not character flaws.
| Metric | Percentage | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Managers reporting burnout symptoms | 82% | Deloitte Canada / LifeWorks |
| Manager engagement in 2025 | 22% | Gallup |
| Leaders who contemplated leaving | 51% | Deloitte Canada / LifeWorks |
| Orgs that lost half their leadership teams | 43% | Industry surveys |
| Healthcare executives reporting extreme stress | 74% | Superhuman |
| Executives who worked without adequate rest | 73% | Superhuman |
| Global productivity cost of low engagement | $10 trillion | Gallup |
The healthcare sector offers a clear example. Seventy-four percent of healthcare executives reported extreme stress in recent surveys. Ninety-three percent of those surveyed believe burnout negatively impacts organizational performance. That concern is not theoretical. It shows up in patient outcomes, staff retention, and operating margins.
A McLean Hospital analysis published in early 2026 noted that 26 percent of executives reported symptoms consistent with clinical depression, compared with rates in the general population that are notably lower. The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology tied this directly to unsustainable workload expectations and insufficient recovery time between intense work periods.
A practical framework for leaders
If the problem is structural, the response should be structural too. Individual resilience training has its place, but it cannot replace organizational redesign. Telling a burned-out manager to meditate more is like telling someone with a broken leg to think positive. Here is a four-part framework boards and senior teams can use.
First, audit the manager workload with the same rigor you apply to financial controls. Map what managers are actually doing against what the role description says. If the gap exceeds fifteen percent, reallocate or hire. Second, mandate recovery time. Seventy-three percent of C-level leaders worked without adequate rest in the past year. That is not dedication. That is a self-reinforcing cycle that ends in departure or diminished judgment. Build non-negotiable recovery windows into quarterly calendars. Third, create peer cohorts so managers can problem-solve together. Isolation amplifies burnout. Connection reduces it. Fourth, measure manager engagement separately from employee engagement. The two groups experience the workplace differently, and they need distinct interventions.
The bottom line
Manager burnout is not a morale problem. It is a financial and strategic problem disguised as a human resources metric. When engagement drops from twenty-seven percent to twenty-two percent in one year, the organization is not losing enthusiasm. It is losing capacity to execute. And when eighty-two percent of senior leaders report exhaustion, the pipeline to replace them is already under strain.
The organizations that act now are not buying wellness programs. They are protecting their operating infrastructure.
Where to go from here
If your leadership team is showing signs of burnout, start with a clear picture of where people stand. Our team at OptimizeTeamwork works with organizations to build sustainable leadership infrastructure through executive coaching →.
